*Sparkles*

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Carers who Don't

This week we learnt of a case involving the relatives of children, all women, who laughed as they forced toddlers to take part in 'dog fight'. It was hideous to hear about children seeking comfort from their primary carers, who just force them on into a fight, that they don't want to participate in. The backstory of the women involved is just as sad as their actions, but perhaps this trial has broken a pattern.

A mother and her three daughters who forced two toddlers to take part in a "dog fight" and filmed it walked free from court yesterday. The women, including the children's mother, goaded the tearful brother and sister to punch each other and even use a magazine and hairbrush as weapons. When the boy, who was in a nappy, stopped fighting they called him a "wimp" and "bloody faggot". Passing sentence at Plymouth crown court, Judge Francis Gilbert said the video taken of the fight was "shocking".

He said: "You laughed at them, you mocked them, you swore at them. You compelled them to hit each other even though they clearly did not want to. You were cruel, callous, clearly causing the children to hurt each other for your own pleasure." He singled out the children's grandmother, who had told police that she saw nothing wrong with what they had done as it would "toughen them up".

But the judge was persuaded not to jail them immediately, instead giving the four a one-year suspended sentence and ordering them to do 100 hours of community work. The court was told how the mother of the children, Zara Care, 21, and her sisters, Serenza Olver, 29, and Danielle Olver, 19, had met at the home of their mother, Carole Olver, 48.

They formed a circle in the living room around the children, a three-year-old girl and a boy of two, and urged them to fight while Zara Care capturing the whole episode on video. In the film up to six adults, including a man, are seen chatting and smoking. As the two children run around the room, one of the women can be heard to say to them, "Do you want to play?' before pushing the boy towards the girl.

The children start circling and slapping each other - goaded by four women, who can be seen and heard laughing. The boy, who is wearing just a nappy and a T-shirt, is then floored by a blow from his sister and lies on the floor crying. After clambering on to an armchair to escape, he buries his head under a cushion but a woman in the room tells him: "Get up - don't be a wimp all your life." He staggers to his feet and punches his sister in the mouth, and, as she falls to the ground, is encouraged to kick her. A female voice says: "And again, whilst she's down, boot her." He then tries to leave the room but an older child blocks his path and the girl again runs over and pummels his back with her fists.

The boy is then told by a female voice: "Get up and punch her, you bloody faggot." He tries to refuse, but then grabs a large black hairbrush and begins to beat his sister, while a woman is heard to say: "He needs weapons, she just has a fist." The girl is caught in the mouth by the brush and begins to scream and lifts her arm in the air, appealing for help from an unseen adult - but is turned away.

At this point, an older child in the room can be heard to say: "Is it our turn yet?" The film ends with the two toddlers screaming and crying, and an adult saying: "That's enough." During the video the women hurl a stream of orders, such as "jump on him", "kick her" and "hit his face".The word "punch" is heard more than 20 times. The video came to light after the children's father, a serving soldier, returned from Iraq and decided to show his parents footage from the video camera the women used. He had expected it to feature the children playing but he was horrified to come upon the eight-minute film of them fighting.

David Gittins, prosecuting, said that the father compared what he saw to a "dog fight" and was reduced to tears. He subsequently went to social services, who called in police. The children's grandmother, a mother of eight, showed no remorse when she was interviewed, insisting it would "harden" them up, it was stated. The judge criticised her for still seeming defiant. The three other defendants wept as the offence was described.

Defending the women, who admitted child cruelty offences, Rupert Taylor said they were not wicked. The three daughters had never been in trouble with the police before. But they were ill-educated, had few advantages in life, and did not realise what they were doing was abhorrent. Mr Taylor said that although they had treated the infants so badly, family was important for them and they were all very close. "They are ashamed and frightened," he said. The judge said the "horror" of what they did meant it was tempting to jail them. But the judge added that he took into account the fact that two of the women, Serenza and Danielle, had children of their own to look after - and also said that Zara's biggest punishment was that her children had been taken out of her care and were now being looked after by other relatives

Backstory

Zara Care, 21Separated from her husband, father of the children, by sending him a text message. Had what was described in court as a desperately sad childhood. Suffered bullying and contemplated killing herself. Resigned to never getting back her children, who are being cared for by her estranged husband's family.

Carole Olver, 49Grandmother of the children. A mother of eight. Court was told she had suffered at hands of a violent partner and spent her life protecting her children from him. Had no other achievements, apart from her large and, usually, reasonably happy family.

Serenza Olver, 29Has two children of school age. Had attempted to kill herself over failed relationships. Said to be terrified that her own children could still be taken away by social services.

Danielle Olver, 19The woman who put a stop to the fight. Has a year-old child herself. Described as having no educational achievements and not having had a meaningful job.

Monday, April 16, 2007

An Own Goal?

Sunday, April 15, 2007

A Poisoned Chalice

Received wisdom today, according to Niclolas Witchell at least, is that Wills dumped Kate. After all, which woman wouldn't want to be a princess?The Kate who appeared in a fashion show & wore red to Sandhurst, when she was supposed to be keeping a low profile, is the Kate having a great time leaping off a boat and looking fabulous in a turquoise gown. It isn't the same person who appears dead eyed clutching her bag.

William is exactly the person with the insight to envision exactly what effect this would eventually have on the psyche of someone he cares about. I suspect he knows that most women with any sense would be sane enough to find the constant attention of the paps enough to interfere with the quality of their life. If the cameras were just being a pain and getting in the way whilst taking a photo, perhaps that would be bearable, but that isn't all it is. Although there is no suggestion that this happened to Miss Middleton, the photographers of disrepute are constantly abusive to get a reaction they can sell.

Kate kept smiling, but she also kept complaining, and she was going to continue to be papped whilst William was a long way away. Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos last night said William and Kate must have been under "horrible" pressure from public attention. She said: "They've been scrutinised constantly, comments made, editorials written about a relationship they themselves are probably trying to figure out."

She went on: "Most people at that age are thinking about things like mortgages, but she's got MI5 helping her with bodyguards, and when they look into the future, it must be surreal, particularly for her, as he at least has been born into it. "We talk about how difficult it is for people who become a celebrity overnight, but for her, it was worse. It wasn't what she was looking for, she just fell in love with a boy she met at university."

Monday, April 09, 2007

Beyond the Pale

Every so often on this blog, I return to my wedding, which will happen one day. Today the theme is frocks, and I have offended many a bride by saying I just don't like wedding dresses. The price tag has nothing to do with it either, I would just rather spend all that dosh on a lovely dress I wouldn't normally buy, even if I never wear that again either! This year my current favourites are Roberto Cavalli (left) and Gucci (right), coming in at somewhere between £2 & £7000, I may be drawing references from said designers with the aid of a good dressmaker. Anyone know such an angel in the Midlands?

I know not all white frocks are meringues, and some are perfectly lovely, but why would I wear white when I never do. I won't be having my dad give me away either, it seems a bit bizarre at 40 quite frankly. I may also be having Van Morrison to play us out of the church... I think my rebellious side is emerging, or as Pamela Anderson said to Fergie (on Shrink Rap), the side of me that it is essential I express because it preserves my integrity. Love my parents to hear that.

A friend of mine seemed to assume I would wear a suit, since I don't to work, why would I ever? Or is that the law for older brides. I am deluded enough to still think myself young enough to look chic, in fact nobody is ever too old for that. Images of age are distorted by the current vogue for cosmetic surgery, but wearing purple and growing old disgracefully, will be forever England in my book!

About Me

Location: Originally from London..., ...but currently residing in Leicestershire, United Kingdom

There were 2 Helens at the time, & I can't remember what the other one got called, but Mrs Twinkletoes named me Helen Sparkles (cos I do apparently) & it's stuck...!
This space has been created mostly for my own amusement & shall be a mixture of high & low culture, along with a pinch of serious comment on current affairs, venturing into the occasional social issue, as well the occasional foray into musings & hidden shallows. Mostly I shall be trying to ensure it looks pretty!